Read Alesis DeToquiville on tyrany of the majority and the abandonment of rationality. Experts are supposed to be one of the things to save us from bad decisions, fifty years ago it would have, but belief in experts has been steadily eroded. The electoral college, too, was supposed to prevent an unfit man from being elected, but the original job has devolved into a rubber stamp.
In the context of the relationship between the citizens and their representatives.... Globalization and disruption is a consequence of capitalism and yet so many folks feel like they've been cheated or taken advantage of by the system they kept voting for..... Stop being a sucker. Regions rise and fall... the Midwest and Old NE isn’t entitled to to this and that any less than Texas or the New South/SE or the West....The history of the US is moving to where the jobs are, this is nothing new. The history of the US is b****ing about adapting to new realities (that might just be the human condition though) There's a certainly anti adaptation entitlement that too many people have which betrays a system that demands adaption. Maybe folks just don't like the results of Reaganomics but can't stop voting for it?
1. Not releasing the aid was in fact what Trump did. We can also look at what happened prior to the release. We also have the testimony that the reason for the delay was, in fact, the refusal to announce an investigation publicly. 2. Whether or not they admit to feeling the pressure isn't really relevant. They would deny or admit it or change every other day if that's what it took to get the aid they need to defend themselves from our adversaries, and those that are illegally waging war against them, the Russians. So their statements wouldn't really qualify as reliable. What would be more reliable is the testimony of those who were in regular contact with them and believed they would do anything Trump told them to do. We have statements to that effect. We have statements to the effect that they would never publicly contradict Trump at the risk of not getting their aid. We have these from multiple witnesses some of whom were Trump appointees and not naturally opposed to Trump. 3. Those things are all fact. It definitely surpasses the 'reasonable doubt' threshold needed for a conviction in a criminal court. 4. Add to that Trump demanded announcement of an investigation, add to that the Trump didn't withhold any approved aid packages from any other nation, including those with indicted heads of state and those that our intelligence agencies are believed to have murdered a journalist. It isn't my opinion that there is evidence of those things. It is a fact that there is evidence of these things.
I'm pretty sure there that there is pretty universal agreement about what words Alexis de Toqueville wrote in his most famous book and what subjects were addressed. If it was really a soft core p*rn or a cookbook, or all the lyrics to American Pie by Don McLean, I think someone would have voiced an objection to all the thousands of treatises and dissertations written on that book by now.
For some reason, you have chosen a strange standard for the burden of proof that goes way beyond 'reasonable doubt'.
Then how did Ukraine receive it if Trump didn't release it? All the above is a narrative not supported by facts. TOTAL conjecture. You state Zelensky would say anything to receive the aid and yet he's had the aid since September and STILL his claim hasn't changed even a little bit. Meanwhile, you want to impeach a President based on opinion and conjecture. Ridiculous. Your grasp of what you CLAIM is fact doesn't make them fact. Telling me the word of the President of Ukraine is "unreliable" in order to maintain your narrative of impeachment is .....FLIMSY...at the VERY least. As far as "reasonable doubt" being surpassed....why hasn't a SINGLE republican signed on? Why did 2 Dem representatives vote against impeachment resolution? You can't even convince all members of the opposition party there is enough here. Who are you trying to kid? Quote me the EXACT phrase and be prepared to defend the word "demand". Trump has withheld or threatened to withhold aid from MULTIPLE countries in his administration. All the more evidence that Ukraine aid being temporarily withheld is not unusual in any way. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-on-lebanon-security-aid-source-idUSKBN1Y629N https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42557818 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/20/donald-trump-threat-cut-aid-un-jerusalem-vote If every time you used the word "fact" instead of "opinion" I took a shot, I'd have been passed out by now.
@TheresTheDagger is simply arguing that no evidence matters, just what the people think. That is exactly where the GOP is today. If actual video evidence shows up tomorrow that clearly shows Trump committed bribery, it absolutely matters not if millions of people (or more precisely, Trump's supporters) don't care. Simply put, Congress needs not to follow their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. The reality is Trump supporters never will turn on him. Trump was completely right. He can shoot someone on broad daylight and maintain his support. And with that, @TheresTheDagger current argument is the best path for them to take, and in effect, they are already doing this today. This is also the reason why impeachment is already done. There are no arguments left to be made. Facts and evidence do not matter. They like to pretend it does, but it doesn't. Any more time on impeachment at this time is a waste. The House has done its Congressional duty, established the facts for the book, history and for those that aren't on the post-fact anti-Constitution world. They are correct to now rapidly wrap this up and send it to the Senate and let them do whatever they want.
It's not difficult to throw out some opinion or some author who wrote something and claim its gospel. That's your right. Expecting one to just accept it as gospel...that's not gonna fly.
Horsesh*t. If you HAD any solid evidence that would be presented. You don't. If a video showed up that would be actual evidence. A "smoking gun". Your assertion here shows how weak the case against Trump is. By all means, tell me more about me. (If ad hominums is the level of debate you offer, just do us both a favor...stop. It's pointless). Facts and evidence DO matter. Unfortunately for the left, all that has been showcased so far is opinion.
But it isn't just something that some biased person testified to. Testimony is evidence. The people who testified were those who Trump appointed. They were those responsible for relaying messages from Trump to the Ukrainians and vice versa. Their accounts all corroborated one another. There were zero witnesses that provided contradicting testimony. There were none. Trump was invited to provide witnesses. He declined. It doesn't have to be gospel. Technically it doesn't have to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. But there isn't really a way that evidence that was never contradicted and corroborated multiple times by independent witnesses with no inherent bias goes beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is beyond sufficient. There is an abundance of evidence pointing to it.
The call transcript contradicts them. The call participants (Trump, Zelensky) contradicts them. Volker and Morrison contradicts them. The fact the aid was released contradicts them. What are you talking about?!
You might want to google Alexis De Toqueville if youve never heard of him and think hes "some guy". I mean, I guess George Washington was just some gross old dude with poor dental hygiene and the Constitution is just some scribbles on parchment made up by some dusty old dudes... though now that I think about it, that comes uncomfortably close to how you appear to view those so...
Oh I know the man although I do admit to not being an expert of his writings. But that aside my comments aren't to disparage him or his works. That would be your interpretation. I also know you're not Alexis De Toqueville. And while I respect your familiarity with him I chuckle a bit at the hubris it must take to use his words, tie them to your own and somehow claim to be "the expert". The ego that must take!
The call transcripts are known to be altered. They were released only after they were caught and reported. A suspect trying to throw drugs out of the vehicle while being persued by police doesn't get them an acquittal.
LOL - The Transcript Trump released asked for a favor, mountains of evidence showing that he withheld aide until he was caught and had to release it has come forward. The very fact that he won't testify or let his team testify by obstructing Congress is in itself IMPEACHABLE. Facts matter to some - but those that are cultists and are in the cult of personality refuse to look at facts and create their own flat earth reality. DD
I have a question has any other administration ever not corporated with the house or senate like the current one has to prove that they are wrong or right about the facts that have been shown.
That is a good question. I don't know. I do remember particular areas from both the Bush Jr. And Obama white houses where they battled with the house and /or senate. I can't make a judgment about frequency or amount. I don't remember that much about Clinton's impeachment particulars to say.
